Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
If one of the developers could at least comment on this I might give it
another try. Otherwise I estimate it would take me weeks to
reverse-engineer what is happening here.
Ralf, I will definitely look into it tonight and get back to you.
OK, I've checked in a fix
--- Aleksey Gurtovoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I've checked in a fix into the main trunk (see
boost/mpl/aux_/lambda_support.hpp). If you could check if it makes the
problem go away, I'll integrate the new version into the release branch.
Thank you very much Aleksey! The error posted before
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David and Aleksey, could you please review the patches and tell
me which are OK to check in? -- I am a bit worried about the
two patches in the mpl/aux_/preprocessed directory. Are these
files auto-generated? Are there master files that
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David and Aleksey, could you please review the patches and tell
me which are OK to check in? -- I am a bit worried about the
two patches in the mpl/aux_/preprocessed directory. Are these
files
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David and Aleksey, could you please review the patches and tell
me which are OK to check in? -- I am a bit worried about the
two patches in
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
OK, I'll wait for a word from Aleksey. If he is happy I'll heck in
the eight patches, both into the trunk and the RC_1_30_0 branch.
Yep, they all look good to me.
Aleksey
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's easy enough to test it with a little program that prints the
value you have.
OK, OK, OK, David. I know that MIPSpro == EDG 238, what I don't know is which
EDG version fixes the problem. Is this better?
Index: is_base_and_derived.hpp
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's easy enough to test it with a little program that prints the
value you have.
OK, OK, OK, David. I know that MIPSpro == EDG 238, what I don't know is which
EDG version fixes the problem. Is
--- Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't use -d0, but I don't see that **passed** message anywhere.
Something else is not right: The other fail tests are only built once, but
the as_to_python_function.cpp test is built each time I enter bjam again.
That's why you see the
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should be:
#if !BOOST_WORKAROUND(__BORLANDC__, BOOST_TESTED_AT(0x570)) \
!BOOST_WORKAROUND(__EDG_VERSION__, = 238)
// The EDG version number is a lower estimate.
// It is not
Beman Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 05:38 PM 3/7/2003, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
... I'll check in the eight patches, both into the trunk and the
RC_1_30_0 branch.
Ralf,
Thanks for being alert to that. Please post a brief note once you have
finished all commits.
I haven't
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are any number of ways you could try reformulating this to make
the error go away. At worst you could try the __BORLANDC__ branch in
is_base_and_derived.hpp.
Another approach:
template typename B, typename D, typename T
static
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the __BORLANDC__ branch different from (not as good as) the
is_base_and_derived implementation in 1.29.0?
cvs diff knows for sure.
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
___
--- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is the __BORLANDC__ branch different from (not as good as) the
is_base_and_derived implementation in 1.29.0?
cvs diff knows for sure.
Sure, but this chasing tails game is impractical. If
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
This requires active participation by the developers. We've spent a
lot of time setting up the auto-builds to enable developers to see
immediately when their changes break portability. We've also made a
major effort cleaning up 1.29.0. That seemed like a good
The MIPSpro problems are due to a hickup in is_base_and_derived.hpp.
Here is the relevant *preprocessed* piece of code:
template typename B, typename D
struct bd_helper
{
template typename T
static type_traits::yes_type check(D const volatile *, T);
static type_traits::no_type
Below is a stand-alone minimal test that still produces the same error message
with MIPSpro:
% CC -LANG:std zminmin.cpp
cc-1108 CC: ERROR File = zminmin.cpp, Line = 13
The indicated expression must have pointer-to-function type.
static const unsigned long value =
Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Below is a stand-alone minimal test that still produces the same error message
with MIPSpro:
% CC -LANG:std zminmin.cpp
cc-1108 CC: ERROR File = zminmin.cpp, Line = 13
The indicated expression must have pointer-to-function type.
I just grabbed the latest code from the RC_1_30_0 branch, and I got a
compile failure when building the Boost.Filesystem library with the
MIPSpro Compilers (7.3.1.3m):
mipspro-C++-action
../../../libs/filesystem/build/bin/libfs.a/mipspro/debug/exception.o
cc-1108 CC: ERROR File =
The regression tests (version 3) are running, and it may be a while
before they are done. In the meantime, the results of preprocessing the
file give more details of the error:
cc-1108 CC: ERROR File =
20 matches
Mail list logo
